From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 15 17:44:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28073 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsUza-0004hM-1e for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:44:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1FMi1PF018049 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:44:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsUzZ-0004gw-Gv; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsUzJ-0004gS-O7 for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:43:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28057 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:43:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsUzH-0001d2-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:43:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsUyI-0001Zs-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:42:43 -0500 Received: from hoemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.226.163] helo=hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsUxL-0001VS-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:41:43 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i1FMfAr14388 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:41:11 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <169892XM>; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:41:09 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC627@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:41:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Juergen responds to me: > Bert> MMm... if we look at for example DateAndTime TC, does that not > Bert> give similar semantics in the name? I am sure there are many > Bert> others that do so too. > > I do not think this is a good comparison, especially since the > DateAndTime definition does not speel out a NULL value and people > frequently use a string will all 0s which is not really consistent > with the TC definition which requires a value unequal to 0 for the > month and day fields. > Mmm... > I think Tom was more pointing into the direction of > InterfaceIndexOrZero where Zero basically indicates that there is a > special value but its semantics must be specified in the description > of the object using that TC. If you are very precise how the special > value (or values) are going to be used, then you will end up with > many TCs. > > So, let me play devils advocate: Can someone summarize why we already > have VlanIdOrAny plus VlanIdOrNone and why VlanIdOrZero is not good > enough? > Well, in the case of InterfaceIndexOrZero a ..OrZero seem logical because it is the interface number or zero. In the case of VlanIdOrNone, to me it makes sense because it is an identifiere or no identifier (none). But I could live with VlanIdOrNone. The VlanIdOrAny, I figured was needed because I believe I did see people use such a thing (as a straight Integer32).. but I'd have to go search for it again. Unfortunately, only a few (like 5 or so) people have expressed an opinion. Form that set, I believe 3 agree with the VlanIdOrAny. I also got one private email which expressed the usefulness of such a TC. So... I do not call that consensus becuase of the very low number of people who had an opinion. Nevertheless, for now I have added the TC to a new rev of the document. Which I will be posting before the deadline. Bert > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen > P.O. Box 750 561, > 28725 Bremen, Germany > _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 15 18:07:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00020 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsVLq-0001wt-N2 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1FN72iN007463 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsVLp-0001up-2w; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsVKs-0001aY-0V for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:06:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29882 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsVKp-00045W-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:05:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsVJt-00040o-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:05:02 -0500 Received: from auemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.223.163] helo=auemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsVJH-0003uC-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:04:23 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i1FN3o329936 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:03:51 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <1698925X>; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:03:49 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC628@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" , "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:03:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I think Tom was more pointing into the direction of > InterfaceIndexOrZero where Zero basically indicates that there is a > special value but its semantics must be specified in the description > of the object using that TC. If you are very precise how the special > value (or values) are going to be used, then you will end up with > many TCs. > So would yopu prefer that instead of: VlanIdentifierOrNone ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN. The special value of zero is used to indicate that no VLAN ID is present or used. " SYNTAX Integer32 (0 | 1..4094) I do a different descriptor and DESCRIPTION, something like: VlanIdentifierOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN. The special value of zero is object-specific and must therefore be defined as part of the description of any object which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include situations where VLAN ID is unknown, where a VLAN ID is not present, or where none or any VLAN ID need to be specified." " SYNTAX Integer32 (0 | 1..4094) And then possibly do away with the VlanIdentifierOrAny? Bert _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 15 19:15:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03855 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:15:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsWPf-0000ao-I1 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:15:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1G0F3Y2002267 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:15:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsWPf-0000aR-6s; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:15:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsWPT-0000Zj-Aj for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:14:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03838 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsWPR-0001Dr-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:14:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsWOe-0001Aw-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:14:00 -0500 Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.54]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsWON-000179-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:13:43 -0500 Received: from user-vcault9.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.87.169] helo=ANDREWLAPTOP) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AsWOF-0005yC-00; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:13:36 -0800 From: "Andrew Smith" To: "'Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:13:26 -0800 Message-ID: <17e501c3f421$b68a7050$1600000a@ANDREWLAPTOP> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC628@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bert, As I've said before, I think that's a backwards step. There's no point in having the TC either (a) if you have to still refine its definition/semantics in the DESCRIPTION of any object that uses it, or (b) if the name represents syntax, not semantics (I don't care how many other TCs people have already defined called "...OrZero" - that does not make them good - if only the syntax is common between various uses of such a TC, without there being common semantics, again I think the TC does not deserve to exist). Sorry for the repetitiocity - this argument does seem to be going around in non-diminishing circles. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org [mailto:bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:04 PM To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t > I think Tom was more pointing into the direction of > InterfaceIndexOrZero where Zero basically indicates that there is a > special value but its semantics must be specified in the description > of the object using that TC. If you are very precise how the special > value (or values) are going to be used, then you will end up with > many TCs. > So would yopu prefer that instead of: VlanIdentifierOrNone ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN. The special value of zero is used to indicate that no VLAN ID is present or used. " SYNTAX Integer32 (0 | 1..4094) I do a different descriptor and DESCRIPTION, something like: VlanIdentifierOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VLAN ID that uniquely identifies a VLAN. The special value of zero is object-specific and must therefore be defined as part of the description of any object which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include situations where VLAN ID is unknown, where a VLAN ID is not present, or where none or any VLAN ID need to be specified." " SYNTAX Integer32 (0 | 1..4094) And then possibly do away with the VlanIdentifierOrAny? Bert _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 06:52:27 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12732 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:52:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AshI9-0007fi-L9 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:52:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GBq1hL029479 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:52:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AshI9-0007fL-D4; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AshHN-0007e2-Jr for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:51:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12692 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:51:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AshHJ-0005hQ-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:51:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AshGQ-0005eR-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:50:15 -0500 Received: from agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de ([134.169.34.18]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AshFR-0005bn-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:49:13 -0500 Received: from hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.81]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i1GBnCmi005705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:49:13 +0100 Received: from hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i1GBnCCw015851; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:49:12 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id i1GBnCge015848; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:49:12 +0100 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:49:12 +0100 Message-Id: <200402161149.i1GBnCge015848@hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: bwijnen@lucent.com CC: bwijnen@lucent.com, bridge-mib@ietf.org In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC628@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> (bwijnen@lucent.com) Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC628@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.24 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes: Bert> I do a different descriptor and DESCRIPTION, something like: [... VlanIdentifierOrZero removed ...] Bert> And then possibly do away with the VlanIdentifierOrAny? Yes, this is what I had in mind. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 06:59:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12935 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:59:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AshOv-0007sl-Qc for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:59:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GBx18w030293 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:59:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AshOv-0007sR-HJ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AshO9-0007rs-7D for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:58:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12905 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:58:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AshO4-00063s-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:58:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AshN7-00061O-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:57:09 -0500 Received: from agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de ([134.169.34.18]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AshMC-0005yn-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:56:12 -0500 Received: from hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.81]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i1GBuAmi009413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:56:10 +0100 Received: from hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i1GBuACw016024; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:56:10 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id i1GBu9MM016021; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:56:09 +0100 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:56:09 +0100 Message-Id: <200402161156.i1GBu9MM016021@hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: ah_smith@acm.org CC: bwijnen@lucent.com, bridge-mib@ietf.org In-reply-to: <17e501c3f421$b68a7050$1600000a@ANDREWLAPTOP> (ah_smith@acm.org) Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t References: <17e501c3f421$b68a7050$1600000a@ANDREWLAPTOP> X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.24 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> Andrew Smith writes: Andrew> As I've said before, I think that's a backwards step. There's Andrew> no point in having the TC either (a) if you have to still Andrew> refine its definition/semantics in the DESCRIPTION of any Andrew> object that uses it, or (b) if the name represents syntax, not Andrew> semantics The reason why the name represents syntax and not semantics is that the TC just says there is a special value (typically zero) where the interpretation of the special value is up to the usage of the TC. This has the big benefit that you need to allocate only one special value. Experience with the InterfaceIndex so far shows that this seem to work reasonably well. Andrew> (I don't care how many other TCs people have already defined Andrew> called "...OrZero" - that does not make them good - if only Andrew> the syntax is common between various uses of such a TC, Andrew> without there being common semantics, again I think the TC Andrew> does not deserve to exist). While I would agree with this principle in a pure programming environment, we have to accept that allocating special values is not as easy in MIB space and putting new semantically rich TCs on the standards track is a slow operation. This is why the solution to have fewer but more generic TCs is attractive in this space. Andrew> Sorry for the repetitiocity - this argument does seem to be Andrew> going around in non-diminishing circles. I like to understand whether there is a real technical reason why the various usages of the TC must use different numbers. Allocating 4096 or whatever was choosen might be a pain down the road (the IETF has some experience with number spaces that at some point in time need to get enlarged, even though this sounded unrealistic when the number space was defined). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 26 15:05:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06084 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwRkm-0002Sr-Jj for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:05:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1QK545o009441 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:05:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwRkk-0002S9-Fb; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwRkh-0002Q3-HU for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:04:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05913 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwRke-0006JL-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:04:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AwRjw-0006BK-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:04:13 -0500 Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwRit-00062e-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:03:07 -0500 Received: from h-68-164-85-161.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.164.85.161] helo=oemcomputer) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AwRis-0001AS-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:03:06 -0800 Message-ID: <000a01c3fca3$c8151700$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC628@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:04:45 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi - > From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" ; "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:03 PM > Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t ... > SYNTAX Integer32 (0 | 1..4094) > > And then possibly do away with the VlanIdentifierOrAny? ... This works as long as one doesn't need to be able to represent both "none" and "any" as well as the specific VLAN numbers. The only context I can think of where one might need both distinct semantics would be in configuring policy-like things. Randy _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib